On boldness

Rarely does the government, that big, clumsy, poorly regarded oaf, pull off anything short of war that touches all lives with one act, one stroke of a president's pen. Such a moment now seems near.

After a year of riotous argument, decades of failure and a century of spoiled hopes, the United States is reaching for a system of medical care that extends coverage nearly to all citizens. The change that's coming, if Sunday's tussle in the House goes President Barack Obama's way, would reshape a sixth of the economy and shatter the status quo.

To the ardent liberal, Obama's health care plan is a shadow of what should have been, sapped by dispiriting downsizing and trade-offs.

To the loud foe on the right, it is a dreadful expansion of the nanny state.

To history, it is likely to be judged alongside the boldest acts of presidents and Congress in the pantheon of domestic affairs. Think of the guaranteed federal pensions of Social Security, socialized medicine for the old and poor, the civil rights remedies to inequality.

I'm not certain I like it any better when the AP is calling Obama 'bold' any more than I did when they repeatedly referred to Dubya with that adjective. "Bold" didn't appropriately portray the decision to go to war on false pretenses, to say nothing about unintended (?) consequences like torture and warrantless wiretapping and so on.

Judging by the frothing insanity of conservatives' latest behavior, however, he must be bold as hell.

Here's the latest schedule associated with the legislation ...

From the House Democratic Caucus meeting, this from House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-CT). He says "shortly after 2, we will have an hour of debate on the rule." This is the rule to allow reconcilation to get to the floor.

They would then vote on the rule, sans deem and pass. He then says there will then be "two hours of debate on the bill."

Larson did not elude to passing the Senate bill later. But he did say they would do this "in the light of day."

In conclusion, Larson added that the Senate bill "will become law tomorrow evening with the president's signature."

If you're trying to time your watching or your DVR-ing, that would be debate on the rule of reconciliation beginning "shortly after" 1:00-2:00 p.m. CDT, that vote followed by two hours of debate on the bill itself (2-4 p.m. Central), and then on to the thrilling conclusion.

March Madness = Senate District conventions

Mostly for those of us doing the final preparations. For mine (SD-17), we're hosting Bill White as a keynoter and expect to hear from many of the judicials (especially those in run-offs) as well as some of the county-wide executive office-seekers and -holders. In the meantime here's a little postpourri ...

-- Speaking of our nominee, White's campaign has had a rough couple of weeks since his landslide primary win. He's not disclosing his tax returns, which both the Beaumont Enterprise and the Chronicle's Rick Casey are chiding him about, and this week it was revealed that he sits on (and has been paid well for) the board of directors of one of the oil companies working the Barnett Shale, controversial for the pollution being created by the hydraulic fracturing technique used for extraction. (My sister Sharon is the authority on hydro-fracking and the Barnett Shale, and has been for some time.)

Most media missed this during last month's gubernatorial debate, but now it's no wonder why White declined to support a moratorium on drilling there.

The campaign needs to get out in front of things like this -- as they did very well with White's refusal to promise to cut taxes if elected -- but they are already behind on these two, and an appropriate (forget 'rapid') response is still lagging.

Texas Democrats need the White campaign firing on all cylinders, and I hope a quick tuneup gets things in order.

Update: And just like that, there are his tax returns. Bradley Olson at the Chron has more.

-- Lakeisha Rogers, the Democratic nominee in CD-22, has generated lots and lots of responses over her, ah, unorthodox beliefs. The SDEC resolved to release the party from supporting her campaign. The resolution was necessary because TDP rules require precinct chairs and the like to support the party's nominees under pain of removal from office.

The intent behind the resolution, expressed in various ways, forms, and places, leaves a lot of unanswered questions that trouble me (and many other Democrats): we are censuring duly elected nominees for their beliefs now? Guilt by association? What would Thomas Jefferson say about this as it relates to free speech? Just because his name was removed by the SBOE Texas school textbooks last week doesn't mean we should already be ignoring what he taught us ... should it?

I think Ms. Rogers could have been pointedly ignored by everybody and it would have served a better purpose than a public rebuke. But I seem to be in the minority on that.

-- The vote on healthcare reform comes this Sunday. It's going to be more dramatic than any of yesterday's first-round games, which were the closest in history.

Really though, my bracket isn't too bloody ... except for that Georgetown-in-the-Final-Four pick.